IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Prateek Jalan, J.
Pooja - Appellant
Versus
Ministry of Ayush - Respondent
W.P.(C) 3267 of 2021
Decided On : 29-07-2021
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenging admission process for ayurveda courses. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. eligibility criteria for counselling rounds. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. interpretation of eligibility provisions is reasonable. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. petition dismissed, no grounds for interference. (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT
Prateek Jalan, J. (Oral)--The proceedings in the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.
W.P.(C) 3267/2021 with CM APPL. 9949/2021 (for stay)
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution concerns a challenge to the admission process for post-graduate courses in Ayurveda for the academic year 2020-21.
Facts
2. The petitioner completed an undergraduate degree in Ayurveda, and aspired for admission in post-graduate courses. For this purpose, she took the entrance examination held on 28.09.2020. The results of the examination were published on 04.11.2020. The petitioner obtained an All-India Rank of 2708 in the relevant category, being the Unreserved category ["UR category"]. All-India counselling was held in three rounds, with a fourth round of counselling by the States. The petitioner participated in all three rounds of counselling but, unfortunately, was not allotted a seat.
3. The grievance with which she has approached the Court is that 23 candidates were permitted to participate in the third/mop-up round of counselling, contrary to the stipulated eligibility conditions. Her contention is that, had the rules been properly followed, she may have been selected in the counselling process.
4. The petitioner therefore seeks the following relief:
"(i) Direct the Respondents to allot one Post Graduation Seat in favour of the Petitioner under All India Ayush Post Graduate Entrance Test, 2020-21; and
(ii) pass such other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
Submissions of learned counsel
5. In support of the petition, Mr. Sarfraz Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, relies upon the following answers given to the Frequently Asked Questions ["FAQs"] published by the respondent- Union of India ["the Union"] in respect of admission through the All India quota:-
"Q.No.44. Who will be eligible for AACCC 03rd/Mop Up Round for Government, Government aided, Deemed Universities, Central Universities and National Institutes? Ans: The Following categories of candidates are eligible for 03rd/Mop Up Round
a) Candidates who are registering for the first time.
b) Candidates who have registered but not been allotted a seat in Round-1 & Round2.
c) All candidates admitted in Round I or Round II and want to upgrade their admitted seats (with fresh choice filling).
Q.No.45. Who will be in-eligible for AACCC 03rd/Mop Up Round for Government, Government aided, Deemed Universitie, Central Universities and National Institutes?
Ans: The Following categories of candidates are in-eligible for 03rd/Mop Up Round:
a) Candidates who have been allotted seat in Round 1 & 2 and not joined the allotted seat.
b) Candidates admitted in Round 1 and avail free exit option after Round-2 result publication.
c) Candidates who have been upgraded their Round-1 seat in Round-2 and not joined the upgraded seat."
[Emphasis supplied]
6. Mr. Khan contends that the 23 candidates in question were permitted to participate in the third/mop up round of counselling, despite the fact that they had been allotted seats in the first round but did not join the allotted seats. According to Mr. Khan, they were ineligible for participation in the third/mop up round by virtue of the answer to FAQ No. 45(a), extracted above.
7. Although the writ petition does not contain details of the 23 candidates to whom seats were so allotted, the example of one candidate was given by Mr. Khan at the first hearing of this petition on 12.03.2021. Referring to the allotment list published by the Union. after the first two rounds of counselling [Part of Annexure P-5 t
Court upheld the interpretation of admission guidelines, confirming eligibility of candidates who participated in earlier rounds for subsequent rounds in the counselling process.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Clause 1.5 of Chapter 1 of the NEET-PG (MD/MS/DNB/MDS) Counselling, 2023, which restricts candidates from par....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to the rules and timelines set in the counselling process, the need to avoid disrupting settled admission processes, and the lack of a vested right ....
The court emphasized the application of Rule 12 (8) (ka) of the M.P. Medical Education (Admission) Rules, 2018, which governs the inclusion of vacant seats in subsequent rounds of counselling.
No legal right vested in the petitioner for allocation of vacant seat, as admission processes are bound by established counseling protocols, reflecting the principle of no fault leading to no prejudi....
The court upheld that an upgrade in seat allocation excludes candidates from participating in subsequent admission rounds, aligning with the established university admission policy.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of preserving merit in the admission process for Post-Graduate Medical Courses, despite deviations from the admission rules and the ....
Vacancy is created either because of non-allocation of seat or candidate not taking admission on allocated seat.
The court upheld the principle of merit-cum-choice in admissions, confirming that procedural fairness is essential when rectifying errors in provisional seat allotment results.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.